It seems, then, that your excitement isn't that he has new ideas or something that hasn't been offered by every other dem candidate, your excitement is for his oratory skills and presentation.

And his proven willingness to not act like a partisan wag and actually work with all his colleagues to get things done.

Like I said before, there isn't another human being in the world who's specific stances on issues and specific plans of actions are going to precisely match mine. Obama's are as close to mine as anyone's are going to get. That combined with the apparent qualities as a human being he has are more than enough for me.

I'm sorry, proven? Ok, please educate me, because I admit I haven't paid much attention to his political career. But on the face of it, he's been a Senator for 2 years, half of which time he's been pretty much absent whilst campaigning for president.

Exactly what has demonstrated his proven willingness to work with all his colleagues to get things done? What things? What colleagues?

Off the top of my head:

Ethics reforms
Energy policy
Illinois health care
He sponsored and received bipartisan support for SCHIP
The fact that the vast bulk of his fund raising for his campaign has been from inidivudal donors, keeping him unbeholden to party machinery.
The fact that he can talk about the ideas and people on "the other side" without demonizing them.

He's only been a US senator for 2 years, however he was an Illinois legislator for 8 years prior to that. He left there with a reputation for being non partisan (in Illinois for crying out loud) and has kept that in his short tenure on the national stage.

Well, he was an Illinois state senator for 8 years and had a long career of community activism before that.

I have no idea if his bipartisan-ship is shown from that time frame but my Chicago friends all feel that he did avoid the worst of the petty squabbling.

But I don't really care if he's bi-partisan. "Bi-partisan" as a political buzzword generally just means "I'm in the minority party but I want you to treat me as an equal anyway." I disagree with his policies and if elected I expected him to try an enact what he thinks is best with minimal consideration of my point of view.

However, based on what I've seen I do expect he'll be polite about it compared to the current behaviors on either side when in power.

But when offered one of these:

1. Stronger agreement policy-wise but I don't like the candidate.
2. Weak agreement policy-wise but I don't like the candidate even if for reasons completely unfair to that candidate.
3. Weak agreement policy-wise but despite myself I find the candidate inspiring.

I'm going to have to go with #3. #1 hasn't exactly worked out for me very well. I have no idea if Obama can accomplish those things he thinks he will try for. I have no idea if he'll be corrupted by the power and turn into a despised figure.

But I do know that Clinton's chances of achieving her policy goals aren't really any better than Obama's (and if hers improve with a sweeping Democratic victory in the Senate then so do his) and she's already most of the way down the path to power-corruption leading to hatred.

The process of wielding political power will probably quickly take the bloom off of Obama and he may end up being more Carter than FDR but I have to prefer the entity that may disappoint than the ones I know with certainty will disappoint.

I think Obama talks a great talk. But, I have my doubts about if we can actually get things done. I think the chosen marketing slogan of "Yes we can" is telling in itself. It's almost as if he's trying to convince us that he can do something that is nearly impossible. I think he's setting us up for a big disappointment. It's naive notion that he's campaigning on.

I'd like to know just where Obama plans to be "bi-partisan" with the GOP if he becomes President......where will he part ways with most Democrats to reach accross the aisle so to speak?

I'm in agreeance with GD, of course.

The other point that I made earlier is that I feel attitude is everything, and that his attitude is the type that engenders positivity and good works from those around him. I've had bosses that inspire people and bosses that make everyone walk on eggshells. Obama seems like the former, and Hillary seems like the latter.

I do think the closemindedness and angry defensivenessof Dubya have infected our social consciousness. The great thing about "Yes We Can" is that it is openended and means many different things.

When I hear "Yes We Can", it doesn't tell me that we can have free health care for everyone without tightening our belts, better education without pushing some buttons, or leave Iraq without massive work. What "Yes We Can" means to me is - we can be nice people. We can work on restoring our good name in the world. We can once again wield diplomacy and charity in meaningful ways. It will take a while, maybe decades. So perhaps it means Yes, We Can get our momentum in the right directions.

Yes, we can be a better nation, one step at a time. And electing a divisive bitch isn't going to help ;) Ok, yeah, just kidding.

Did Bill's use of "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" give anyone wild expectations?

Yup - and he sorely disappointed.

I'm with Alex, I think the term "bipartisan" is misleading. What interests me about Obama is that he's remained non-partisan. He doesn't have an "us vs. them" attitude. Certainly most of what he wants to accomplish falls more in line with those on the left of the aisle, but he does not discount people simply because they are of a different party. Have you seen the flack he's (especially from Hillary and Bill) taken simply for saying a good word about Reagan? Heaven forbid. And all he praised Reagan on was for changing the course of a government that had been existing with little accountability. How DARE he!

But apparently some people are happier playing "us vs. them" and no one of "us" is ever allowed to say anything good about one of "them". I'm bloody sick of it, even if I'm on the same side of the aisle as "us".